 | NixOS Foundation | 488 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 124 Servers |
| NixOS Foundation | 488 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 124 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 13 Mar 2024 | ||
 tgunnoe | In reply to @delroth:delroth.netthat would definitely be a start I think. tomberek put the initial work in and there hasn't been any responses or followups by anyone until a few days ago | 19:49:29 |
 delroth | there's a reason why we have the FCP for RFCs | 19:50:02 |
 ronef | Side note for transparency, I'm going to be back in 2.5 hours. I've taken a one year course called "Touchy Feely" (Back in the end of September). I'd love to share if anyone is interested but that's a totally different thread. | 19:50:05 |
| delroth | nobody was expecting this proposal to be ever considered final/usable | 19:50:15 |
 [0x4A6F] | In reply to @delroth:delroth.netWe abstain from Sponsors who glorify violence pornographic sites extremist sites Pages that trivialize crimes and call for them | 19:50:17 |
 piegames | Pornographic sites is oddly specific but I guess | 19:52:01 |
| [0x4A6F] | We shouldn't probhibit our one presence due to Youth protection constrains. | 19:52:10 |
| [0x4A6F] | In reply to @delroth:delroth.net* We abstain from Sponsors who glorify
| 19:52:47 |
| piegames | I mean obviously not going to have that debate but it *would* be funny though | 19:52:53 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | given that there is no commitment yet to even considering policy changes, it seems premature to start debating over the exact exclusion list | 19:52:59 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.townI would really like an answer to this question, to that en | 19:53:32 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town* I would really like an answer to this question, to that end | 19:53:33 |
| [0x4A6F] | Yeah, I had a mockup with some of that sites as sponsors for theroretical NixCon sponsorship page. But no... | 19:53:50 |
| piegames | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.townSinilarly, we would also discuss the processes which will govern sponsorship selection, regardless of established policies | 19:54:29 |
| tgunnoe | In reply to @delroth:delroth.netbut the foundation isn't ran by RFCs, is it? | 19:56:11 |
 samueldr | this is making a parallel | 19:56:51 |
| delroth | In reply to @ultranix:matrix.orgplease ask the question you actually want to ask | 19:56:56 |
 patka | The foundation seems to be ran by people sticking their head into the sand | 19:57:03 |
 Julien | There is clearly a level of discrepancy between the community consensus of what the foundation used to make a decision on this sponsorship (the proposal has received no attention or consensus) and the precedent of dropping Anduril in September (that was done already with a lot of voices and concerns from community members) | 19:58:51 |
| Julien | * There is clearly a level of discrepancy between the community consensus of what the foundation used to make a decision on this sponsorship (the policy proposal has received no attention or consensus) and the precedent of dropping Anduril in September (that was done already with a lot of voices and concerns from community members) | 19:59:10 |
| tgunnoe | In reply to @delroth:delroth.netI'm not sure what you mean by that. | 19:59:28 |
| Julien | Accepting the sponsorship in this instance was, in contradiction with the intent, actually a strong decision in regards to the elements that were accessible to the foundation at that point | 20:00:22 |
| Julien | And not "an absence of decision because community should read consensus of these matters and not the foundation" | 20:00:57 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | Julien: if what you intend to say is "accepting the sponsorship was in line with community feedback", then I strongly disagree - the anger at last year's incident should have been an abundantly clear signal | 20:01:12 |
| Julien | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.townthat the opposite of what I intend to say, which makes me realize I am probably unclear in my phrasing | 20:01:44 |
| Julien | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town* that is the opposite of what I intend to say, which makes me realize I am probably unclear in my phrasing | 20:01:52 |
| Julien | what I mean is that to use the interim policy as a justification for a decision it should have received at least the same amount of attention from the community than the september event, which should have made a precedent. | 20:02:50 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | ahhh, right. | 20:03:13 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | yeah, okay, I could see that | 20:03:26 |
 @theophane:hufschmitt.net | (back online, had to be off the grid time to get back to my hotel): Sorry for my message earlier, I overreacted because I was quite surprised by the difference in tone between the meeting we had earlier and the discussions here. To emphasise what ronef said earlier, we tried to convey the message that we were willing to build a consensus around a sponsorship policy. And I'm (honestly) sorry if that's not how it came across. | 20:04:42 |